Intraspecific variation in inhibitory motor control in guppies, Poecilia reticulata

Abstract

Inhibitory control (IC) is the ability to overcome impulsive or prepotent but ineffective responses in favour of more appropriate behaviours. The ability to inhibit internal predispositions or external temptations is vital in coping with a complex and variable world. Traditionally viewed as cognitively demanding and a main component of executive functioning and self‐control, IC was historically examined in only a few species of birds and mammals but recently a number of studies has shown that a much wider range of taxa rely on IC. Furthermore, there is growing evidence that inhibitory abilities may vary within species at the population and individual levels owing to genetic and environmental factors. Here we use a detour‐reaching task, a standard paradigm to measure motor inhibition in nonhuman animals, to quantify patterns of interindividual variation in IC in wild‐descendant female guppies, Poecilia reticulata. We found that female guppies displayed inhibitory performances that were, on average, half as successful as the performances reported previously for other strains of guppies tested in similar experimental conditions. Moreover, we showed consistent individual variation in the ability to inhibit inappropriate behaviours. Our results contribute to the understanding of the evolution of fish cognition and suggest that IC may show considerable variation among populations within a species. Such variation in IC abilities might contribute to individual differences in other cognitive functions such as spatial learning, quantity discrimination or reversal learning.

Social environment affects inhibitory control via developmental plasticity in a fish

“…We tested the presence of a socially-mediated plasticity in inhibitory control in the guppy fish, Poecilia reticulata. In this species, several studies have reported refined inhibitory abilities Santacà et al, 2019) and remarkable intraspecific variability in cognition (reviewed in , including in inhibitory control (Macario et al, 2021;Savaşçı et al, 2021). Furthermore, variation in social environment has been consistently reported in natural guppy populations (Darden et al, 2020;Edenbrow et al, 2011;Magurran & Seghers, 1990, Seghers & Magurran, 1991Seghers & Magurran, 1991).…”

Variation in inhibitory control does not influence social rank, foraging efficiency, or risk taking, in red junglefowl females

“…Nevertheless, not all studies find consistency in behaviours affected by inhibitory control. For example, studies which investigate consistency in how inhibitory control affects performance across tasks tend to find no consistency, potentially because these tasks measure different aspects of inhibitory control (reviewed in Macario et al 2020). Consistency in inhibitory control in other studies may also be affected by learning, with repeated experience of a task individuals have been found to demonstrate better inhibitory control (e.g., Kabadayi et al 2018;Ryding et al 2021;van Horik et al 2018), or length of time between experiences of the task.…”

“…However, we do not know yet how inhibitory control is affected by selection. To begin with, little is known about temporal consistency in behaviours influenced by inhibitory control (but see, Kabadayi et al 2018;Macario et al 2020;Ryding et al 2021;van Horik et al 2018), nor how these behaviours correlate with each other. Behaviours influenced by inhibitory control include impulsive behaviours.…”

Five Breakthroughs: A First Approximation of Brain Evolution From Early Bilaterians to Humans

“…If much of the presumably intelligence spatial navigation tasks can be performed by animals without VTE, then what is the benefit of VTE? Some suggestive evidence can be seen in the superior performance of mammals on certain tasks requiring “hard choices.” For example, mammals tend to substantially outperform non-mammal vertebrates on detour tasks, where an animal has to make a roundabout path around a barrier in order to get to a goal (MacLean et al, 2014 ; Gatto et al, 2018 ; Macario et al, 2020 ). Mammals also seem to outperform non-mammals in delayed gratification tasks, whereby they have to resist choosing an immediate small reward in order to get a delayed larger reward (Stevens et al, 2010 ).…”